The Portland daily press., 1887-09-15
RAILROAD SCHEMES.
A Lover Of New Hampshire on the
Danger Of Monopoly.

CONCORD. N. H., Sept. 14.-In the House
this forenoon, after the conclusion of routine
business, the debate on the railroad question
was resumed.
Mr.. Young of Rochester spoke in opp0si-
tion to the Hazen bill. He said he addressed
the members from sense of duty and in
conformity to the wishes of his constituents.
The business men Of his town were opposed
to the BILL The lasoring men of his town
and of the State, for whom he spoke, were
also opposed to what was once known as the
Hazen bill, but is now recognized as the
Boston 81 Maine scheme to secure control Of
the railroads of New Hampshire. He be-
lieyed in competition. Consolidation had
worked nothing but harm in his town and
section. Parallel lines should never con-
solidate and competing roads should never
be brought together. As laboring man he
was. also opposed to concentration Of
wealth and he saw in the present an attempt
to introduce into the State the policy of
Gould and Vanderbilt. He quoted Horace
Greeley, James A. Garfield, Jeremiah Black
and others ON the dangers to the rights of
the public from monopolies. He was lover
of New Hampshire, and he hoped the State
would be freed from the monopolistic power
U
country. In conclusion he said: LET us
say to the Boston & Maine that we do not
want to give you further power because New
Hampshire men can control New Hampshire
railroads. Let usTindefnitely postpone the
Hazen bill and resist the attempts of the
Boston q Maine to create great monopoly
within our borders.
Mr.. O'Connor of Manchester followed on
the same side. Among the questions to be
considered in the determination Of the con-
troversy was what was the purpose of the
Colby bill. Did the Boston q Lowell lease
he Northern & Montreal road in good faith faith
and did Concord have fair opportunity to
lease those lines? AS member of the leo
islature in 1888 he voted for the Colby bill on
the understanding that it was designed to
allow an union Of the lines in the Merrimack
Valley and to resist the attempt of the Bos-
ton & Lowell Had the purpose of that bin
been to permit foreign corporation to seize
New Hampshire railroads he would never
have voted for it. The purpose of the Colby
bill was to keep the Lowell out of the State
instead of to let 1t ln The report Of a
majority of the railroad committee in 1888
stated that the purpose of the bill
was TO permit an union of State railroads
The Boston and Lowell did not in 1884 lease
the Northern and Montreal in good faith.
The State had served notice on them to that
effect and yet dlsregardlng that fact, that
good faith? The Lowell took the Nashua &
Lowell and operated it under the lease
which has never been ratified and is now
operating it in violation Of the laws Of the
State. In 1883 the legislature said to the
Lowell "We don't want you in this State"
At the annual meeting Of the Northern rail-
road the stockholders, after the lease of the
line had been agreed upon by the directors.
served notice on Mr.. Dow and others. that
they were acting in violation of the law. and
that the lease would be contested. This
,not;ao tbaxy disraUardpd and violatal ~, -.
by taking the line and operating it until a
decision of the Supreme court saved il.
At this point the speaker suspended and
the House adjourned.